Ugh. This is like campaigning to get cigarettes outlawed, and watching Congress respond by dropping all tobacco taxes... while replacing the stars on the American flag with Marlboro Lights.
Except for all the cancer-causing part, of course. That metaphor is very much TIC.
And hopefully a good illustration.
Seriously guys, if you give top WW to the worst teams AND adopt my measure (incrasing the value of WW), I won't be very thrilled. The incentive to tank will be too high, and I'm too much of a capitalist to support that strong of an anti-winner penalty. SOME balancing is good for the league. That combination of rule changes, IMHO, will be UNbalancing... and at the expense of the 6-15 teams even more than of the 1-5 teams, which theoretically are better equipped to handle it.
If you guys follow that route, as before... I'll see what happens this year. But if it goes as badly as I'm imagining, you can expect a STRONG 'okay, that sucked, let's undo it NOW' campaign in the '10-'11 offseason.
I think we should adopt my original proposal (making waivers worthwhile again), and at the same time add Matt's idea of making waiver picks NOT linked to team performance. Rather, you would have the same pick you ended the previoous year with... and everyone eventually gets the same shot at top prospects. Some teams will get that after tough years... great for them! Some will get it after great years... and that's fine, cuz it's just their turn! And some will get it when they're in the middle of the pack, and it'll help propel them into a playoff run... which IMO will be exciting to watch.
I don't care so much how the picks are initially awarded this year if we adopt that system, although I'd still be concerned about going low-to-high. Maybe make it random... or leave it with the high teams for one more year if you don't want to rock the boat. Random draw might be the best solution.